Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1887-01-08


ter far than party-free government; some
thing infinitely superior to partisan ad-
vantage-respect for the law of the land.
WHISKY AND CRIME.
Now that the Gardiner-Guindon muir
der case is about to SO to the jury, there is
no improperly in commenting upon the
line of defense taken by the defendants
counsel. 1t amounts to this: Gardiner,
by a complication of nervous disorders,
aggravated by undue indulgence in alco-
holic and other stimulants, was incapable
of entertaining that generalization and
malice which is the essence of the crime of
murder; he was, therefore, guilty, at the
worst, of manslaughter only. Lay judgment
based upon the testimony as reported in
the newspapers, does not justify this con-
elusion. Gardiner, who was sane enough
an hour or two before the killing to play
games at cards, and to conduct himself
peacefully in the presence of men, in the
heat of stimulation of a violent temper
quarrels with his wife, and vents his rage
in the presence Of women upon an inno-
cent victim, who, unfortunately, at just
that moment came in his way. 1t is
barely possible that the man was
temporarily crazed, but if so, one
of the immediate causes of the alleged
unconscious cerebration" was whisky.
The result of his indulgence in stimulants
was the killing of human being, and that
is the long and short of the matter. This
shielding of crime by the plea of incapac-
ity to intend wrong, due to indulgence in
stimulants is becoming altogether too COM
mon. The law contemplates that intoxi-
cation shall constitute no defense, but in
seven cases out of every ten instances of
this kind, the ingenuity of counsel has ere
ated doubt sufficient in the minds of jurors,
to save the offender from his just deserts
1t remains that Gardiner, who was sane
enough for all ordinary purposes just be-
fore the killing, and has been ever since,
did STAY young Guindon. The strongest
point in his defense is that he had no cause
for any grievance against the young man
but then, intoxication always urges men to
causeless acts. 1t is altogether probable
that Gardiner will escape punishment for
murder, but the judgment of the people
will not be changed by that result They
will continue to believe, and rightfully,
that the law permits too easy escape from
the consequences of crime, by reason of the
convenient aid of its chief ally, strong
drink
Now if this is true, and it is demon
strable that it is verify, how long must we
wait for public sentiment to be so quick
ened to action as to put upon the statute
books the proper laws to meet the COM
mission of crime under intoxication? Not
long, let us hope. Our civilization is up
to the level of the remedy; all that is
needed is the arousing of public judgment
to public execution. When that comes
about there will result laws which
awakened and outraged public sentiment
will make effective; first, to completely
prevent the plea of intoxication, want OF
malice or generalization because of alco-
holic-befogged reason; law so clear and
unambiguous, that by no cunning of the
advocate, or merciful interposition of the
Court, can the defendant enter the plea :;
secondly, law that shall go even beyond
that, and make crime committed when
the reason is dethroned by voluntary
intoxication, or by addiction to alcoholic
stimulants to the degree of benumbing
moral sensibility, more heinous than crime
committed in anger, for gain, or by mere
negligence. That is to say, the inevitable
tendency of social growth must eventually
bring us up to the enactment of laws that
will make punishmentfo for crime committed
by the intoxicated more certain and severe
IMAM III otllet cdses. IoWards, as every
one knows, frequently drink intoxicants
for the very purpose of giving them cour-
age to commit crime, and when brought to
the bar of justice plead their physical and
mental condition as an excuse. In vulgar
parlance the saying is that these classes
whisky up" in order to secure the neces-
sary nerve" and the form of the ex-
preston is so forcible as to justify its use
here. So we say the law of the future will
be, as the law of the present should be, let
him who "puts the enemy into his mouth
that steals away his brains," take the
consequences.